Dem introduces bills to eliminate electoral college, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

[Montrovant]

The votes that went for Nadar would have won the presidency for the DEMs if Nader didn't exist. Same with Perot with the REPs.
I bet HRC is still screaming into her daily bottle of Bombay Gin whenever she thinks of Jill Stein LOL!

Actually, polls in 1992 showed if Perot wasn't on the ballot, his share of the vote would have been equally split between Bush and Clinton,a nd Clinton still would have won.

Democrats should be upset with Jill Stein. What the should be doing is trying to obliterate the Green Party completely, Bog them down with legal challenges every time they try to get on the ballot.

They've cost progressives two elections now, and probably driven the things the Greens say they care about back 50 years.

Yeah! Because rather than voters having choices, we should embrace limiting choice to two possibilities!









In case you missed it, that's sarcasm.

 

[edward37]

kyzr since you have all the answers help me here......if the moron in the WH now has the right to build his damn wall why can't he do it and spare 1000's from suffering?

 

[Montrovant]

The Dems hold New York and California every election...........If they take Texas and Florida it's pretty much over..........why...........because of the high population and EC votes there.............

The EC isn't rigged..........this is just the libs whining for over 2 years because they lost.

I never said the EC was rigged, I pointed out that in Wyoming one vote counts more than one vote in Texas. This is just the way the system is designed.

Wyoming EC's don't outweigh anything...........that state for the overall election is insignificant........the 4 states I quoted do..............more votes on the line.

I do not know if you are being obtuse on purpose or just dumb.

Wyoming gets 1 EC vote for every 193,000 people in their state

Texas gets 1 EC vote for every 744,737 people in their state.

Except you don't seem to understand anything.
Large urban centers are the least capable of making good realistic choices about what is best for a whole country.
There is no one who would ever think majority rule is a good way to make political decisions.
That is why we have a representative government, to avoid the mistakes a true democracy would make.
That is why most countries use a parliamentary system, so the mob does not even get to vote for prime minister at all.

If majority rule was the way to govern, then we should just let India and China take over the whole world.

1. Pretty much every election other than president is decided by popular vote. Are you saying the Electoral College is the only thing standing between a representative government and majority rule?
2. If the president is elected by popular vote rather than the EC, isn't he still representing the nation?

 

[Flash]

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government. Especially when the majority can find out that they can use the government to steal from the minority, which is the oppression of Democratic Socialism.

Our Founding Fathers knew it and that is why they tried to mitigate the Oppression of the Mob by having a Republic, with a Bill of Rights and an Electoral College. God bless them!

 

[JoeB131]

If you don't understand how presidential elections work, and what the EC is, you are simply too stupid to debate with. Thanks for playing, now give your mommy her puter back.

That's the problem, THEY AREN'T WORKING. The people loudly, clearly and unequivocally said NO to Trump, every day he proves his unfitness for office. The fact we are discussing transforming the presidency by limiting pardon power and chucking the EC is proof that the system failed.

 

[Ambivalent1]

They ALWAYS want to change the rules when they don't get their way.

We want to abolish the electoral college because -unlike Republicans- we want every vote to count. You guys want to keep the current system for the same reason that you want to suppress votes- you know that in a fair system where no one is disenfranchised YOU LOOSE!

You want it gone because you NEVER like "rules" that don't allow you to get your way.
It's just that simple.

 

[Rigby5]

The votes that went for Nadar would have won the presidency for the DEMs if Nader didn't exist. Same with Perot with the REPs.
I bet HRC is still screaming into her daily bottle of Bombay Gin whenever she thinks of Jill Stein LOL!

Actually, polls in 1992 showed if Perot wasn't on the ballot, his share of the vote would have been equally split between Bush and Clinton,a nd Clinton still would have won.

Democrats should be upset with Jill Stein. What the should be doing is trying to obliterate the Green Party completely, Bog them down with legal challenges every time they try to get on the ballot.

They've cost progressives two elections now, and probably driven the things the Greens say they care about back 50 years.

Yeah! Because rather than voters having choices, we should embrace limiting choice to two possibilities!









In case you missed it, that's sarcasm.

Wrong.
You can have all the choices you want if you first have an open primary, and then a run off between only the top 2.
That is by far much more fair, because would allow people to win who are more popular with a mixture of both republicans and democrats. For example, lots of republicans would have voted for Bernie Sanders since he is a fiscal conservative and anti gun control.
Sanders likely would have easily beaten either Hillary or Trump in an open election between just 2 candidates.

Oops. Just read the "sarcasm" thing. But still not quite sure what you mean?

 

[Rigby5]

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government. Especially when the majority can find out that they can use the government to steal from the minority, which is the oppression of Democratic Socialism.

Our Founding Fathers knew it and that is why they tried to mitigate the Oppression of the Mob by having a Republic, with a Bill of Rights and an Electoral College. God bless them!

Correct.
A pure democracy is known as "mob rule", and you get emotional mistakes like lynchings.

 

[Rigby5]

The Dems hold New York and California every election...........If they take Texas and Florida it's pretty much over..........why...........because of the high population and EC votes there.............

The EC isn't rigged..........this is just the libs whining for over 2 years because they lost.

I never said the EC was rigged, I pointed out that in Wyoming one vote counts more than one vote in Texas. This is just the way the system is designed.

Wyoming EC's don't outweigh anything...........that state for the overall election is insignificant........the 4 states I quoted do..............more votes on the line.

I do not know if you are being obtuse on purpose or just dumb.

Wyoming gets 1 EC vote for every 193,000 people in their state

Texas gets 1 EC vote for every 744,737 people in their state.

Except you don't seem to understand anything.
Large urban centers are the least capable of making good realistic choices about what is best for a whole country.
There is no one who would ever think majority rule is a good way to make political decisions.
That is why we have a representative government, to avoid the mistakes a true democracy would make.
That is why most countries use a parliamentary system, so the mob does not even get to vote for prime minister at all.

If majority rule was the way to govern, then we should just let India and China take over the whole world.

1. Pretty much every election other than president is decided by popular vote. Are you saying the Electoral College is the only thing standing between a representative government and majority rule?
2. If the president is elected by popular vote rather than the EC, isn't he still representing the nation?

Popular vote is never best. It is winner take all. That is why most countries use a parliamentary system, where the population does not vote for Prime Minister at all, and instead representatives are appointed based on % of votes, and they elect the prime minister.
That requires coalitions, which allow the minority to have influence.
MUCH better system.

 

[Rigby5]

There’s nothing trivial about this.....Mexicrats want and need the wetbacks in south Mexifornia, the fudge packers in San Francisco and the weirdos in Loon York to decide national elections and keep the Party Of Filth relevant....Simple shit.

Well, um, yeah, when that makes up the majority of the country, that's what it should be...

The point is, even with all you stupid white people voting for the interests of the rich over your own, you still can't win without gimmicks.

One person, one vote... you guys haven't won that since 1988.

Popular vote is essentially just mob rule and is never best, especially when the two parties have a strangle hold on who even gets on the ballot.

 

[BrokeLoser]

There’s nothing trivial about this.....Mexicrats want and need the wetbacks in south Mexifornia, the fudge packers in San Francisco and the weirdos in Loon York to decide national elections and keep the Party Of Filth relevant....Simple shit.

Well, um, yeah, when that makes up the majority of the country, that's what it should be...

The point is, even with all you stupid white people voting for the interests of the rich over your own, you still can't win without gimmicks.

One person, one vote... you guys haven't won that since 1988.

Popular vote is essentially just mob rule and is never best, especially when the two parties have a strangle hold on who even gets on the ballot.

JoeB131 believes the best system is one where a race can fuck it’s way to the top through fertility. He’s a smart dude...just ask him.

 

[Rigby5]

They ALWAYS want to change the rules when they don't get their way.

We want to abolish the electoral college because -unlike Republicans- we want every vote to count. You guys want to keep the current system for the same reason that you want to suppress votes- you know that in a fair system where no one is disenfranchised YOU LOOSE!

That is totally wrong.
For example, if one were to have allowed Bernie Sanders to run against both Trump and Hillary, clearly he would have won because he was so much more conservative, being against war, against gun control, and for a balanced budget.
In fact, Hillary simply was not very popular at all, and never should have been nominated.
It was all cheating done by the democratic party members, who did illegal things like giving Hillary the debate questions a head of time.

We do NOT at all want all votes to count equally, as that is mob rule.
Do you want states like CA, NY, and FL to dictate speed limits in states like UT, MT, or AL?
Of course not.
States have very differents needs, and their rights should NOT be dictates by a remote majority that does not know or care.
In fact, CA, NY, and FL are the most obviously corrupt and need to be ignored the most.

 

[PredFan]

One man, one vote

Not, some people votes count more than others depending where you live

Soooo...does that mean you are in favor of the EC?

Nope

Well, what you are complaining about is what the EC prevents.

 

[PredFan]

One man, one vote

Not, some people votes count more than others depending where you live

Soooo...does that mean you are in favor of the EC?

While I favor the EC, that is not the way it works. A person's vote in Wyoming is worth way more than a persons vote in Texas.

Not by much considering the difference between the two states in EC votes. 38 vs. 3 for Wyoming?

Texas has 48.85 times more people than Wyoming, but only 12.66 times as many EC votes.

Irrelevant statistic. Texas has a lot more influence on the election, 4 times more, than Wyoming. Thus making each Texas vote essentially equal to each Wyoming vote.

 

[PredFan]

Bull shit, the population of Illinois is 12.8 million and the population of Chicago is 2.7 million. 10.1 million people live in those counties. Mob rule, that’s what you are advocating.

So you obviously can't read a map. Yes, 10 Million people live in Cook (only half of which is Chicago), DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will... which vote largely Democratic. The rest of the state is pretty much empty space where no one lives.

And that too is complete bull shit. I have relatives in Illinois so I’m VERY familiar with the state. For instance I know that Lake County in sparsely populated, since I visit my wife’s brother there. He lives in Wauconda. The rest of her family live just north of Springfield.

 

[Montrovant]

The votes that went for Nadar would have won the presidency for the DEMs if Nader didn't exist. Same with Perot with the REPs.
I bet HRC is still screaming into her daily bottle of Bombay Gin whenever she thinks of Jill Stein LOL!

Actually, polls in 1992 showed if Perot wasn't on the ballot, his share of the vote would have been equally split between Bush and Clinton,a nd Clinton still would have won.

Democrats should be upset with Jill Stein. What the should be doing is trying to obliterate the Green Party completely, Bog them down with legal challenges every time they try to get on the ballot.

They've cost progressives two elections now, and probably driven the things the Greens say they care about back 50 years.

Yeah! Because rather than voters having choices, we should embrace limiting choice to two possibilities!









In case you missed it, that's sarcasm.

Wrong.
You can have all the choices you want if you first have an open primary, and then a run off between only the top 2.
That is by far much more fair, because would allow people to win who are more popular with a mixture of both republicans and democrats. For example, lots of republicans would have voted for Bernie Sanders since he is a fiscal conservative and anti gun control.
Sanders likely would have easily beaten either Hillary or Trump in an open election between just 2 candidates.

Oops. Just read the "sarcasm" thing. But still not quite sure what you mean?

What I meant is that JoeB's proposal to suppress alternative political parties is a terrible idea. I find the idea that because someone like the Green Party attracts voters who would choose Democrats before Republicans, we should eliminate the Green Party, to be ridiculous and dangerous. There is little enough choice as it is in national elections.

 

[Montrovant]

I never said the EC was rigged, I pointed out that in Wyoming one vote counts more than one vote in Texas. This is just the way the system is designed.

Wyoming EC's don't outweigh anything...........that state for the overall election is insignificant........the 4 states I quoted do..............more votes on the line.

I do not know if you are being obtuse on purpose or just dumb.

Wyoming gets 1 EC vote for every 193,000 people in their state

Texas gets 1 EC vote for every 744,737 people in their state.

Except you don't seem to understand anything.
Large urban centers are the least capable of making good realistic choices about what is best for a whole country.
There is no one who would ever think majority rule is a good way to make political decisions.
That is why we have a representative government, to avoid the mistakes a true democracy would make.
That is why most countries use a parliamentary system, so the mob does not even get to vote for prime minister at all.

If majority rule was the way to govern, then we should just let India and China take over the whole world.

1. Pretty much every election other than president is decided by popular vote. Are you saying the Electoral College is the only thing standing between a representative government and majority rule?
2. If the president is elected by popular vote rather than the EC, isn't he still representing the nation?

Popular vote is never best. It is winner take all. That is why most countries use a parliamentary system, where the population does not vote for Prime Minister at all, and instead representatives are appointed based on % of votes, and they elect the prime minister.
That requires coalitions, which allow the minority to have influence.
MUCH better system.

There is a difference between preferring a parliamentary system to believing that voters in large urban centers should not have as much say in government as voters in other areas.

Also, even if the election of president were done based on popular vote, the country would still be a representative system.

 

[Flash]

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government. Especially when the majority can find out that they can use the government to steal from the minority, which is the oppression of Democratic Socialism.

Our Founding Fathers knew it and that is why they tried to mitigate the Oppression of the Mob by having a Republic, with a Bill of Rights and an Electoral College. God bless them!

Correct.
A pure democracy is known as "mob rule", and you get emotional mistakes like lynchings.

Or taking the money of the people that earned it and giving it to the welfare queens to keep the ruling party in power.

 

[Flash]

They ALWAYS want to change the rules when they don't get their way.

We want to abolish the electoral college because -unlike Republicans- we want every vote to count. You guys want to keep the current system for the same reason that you want to suppress votes- you know that in a fair system where no one is disenfranchised YOU LOOSE!

That is totally wrong.
For example, if one were to have allowed Bernie Sanders to run against both Trump and Hillary, clearly he would have won because he was so much more conservative, being against war, against gun control, and for a balanced budget.
In fact, Hillary simply was not very popular at all, and never should have been nominated.
It was all cheating done by the democratic party members, who did illegal things like giving Hillary the debate questions a head of time.

We do NOT at all want all votes to count equally, as that is mob rule.
Do you want states like CA, NY, and FL to dictate speed limits in states like UT, MT, or AL?
Of course not.
States have very differents needs, and their rights should NOT be dictates by a remote majority that does not know or care.
In fact, CA, NY, and FL are the most obviously corrupt and need to be ignored the most.

I am not sure I agree with you that Sanders would have won but certainly everything else you said was spot on. Hillary was certainly a very flawed candidate but Trunp's message was what the American people wanted to hear. .

I do not want the millions of inner city welfare queens voting to take the money that I earn away. That is both oppression and slavery.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They ALWAYS want to change the rules when they don't get their way.

We want to abolish the electoral college because -unlike Republicans- we want every vote to count. You guys want to keep the current system for the same reason that you want to suppress votes- you know that in a fair system where no one is disenfranchised YOU LOOSE!

You want it gone because you NEVER like "rules" that don't allow you to get your way.
It's just that simple.

No ! YOU are just that simple.